And it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together at Jerusalem,
The morning after the arrest, Israel's whole religious leadership meets in Jerusalem. Their business is two fishermen and one healed man. They meet as judges, and God turns their court into the place where the leaders of the nation hear the name of Jesus.
Rulers, elders and scribes together made up the governing body of the nation. The men in that room already knew this case. One commentator names them and shows what their meeting achieved without meaning to:
The arrest of Peter and John called for a large gathering of the Jewish rulers, elders and scribes, including Annas and Caiaphas (in practice a joint high priest with Annas). These were the same men who had condemned the Lord Jesus to death. Of course it was the preaching of Jesus risen from the dead that angered them. But they could not ignore the striking miracle of the healing of the lame man... So their gathering was a God-ordained means of their hearing the truth about Christ risen from among the dead — the truth they did not want to hear.
The word "elder" has a long history. Here it does not yet mean what it will later mean in the church.
The word "elder" comes down from the earliest family days of Israel (Ex. 3:16). The family was the model of government, and in the family the father, as the elder, had authority. The nation then took the same pattern: the heads of houses became the heads of the nation. In this sense the word appears often in the Gospels and Acts (Matt. 26:3, 47, 57, 59; Acts 4:5, 8). In Acts 11:30 we find the first use of the word for the leaders in the Church of God.
Two fishermen from Galilee had never stood in such a place. The size of the assembly may have been the point.
The two apostles were kept in custody for the night, since it was evening when they were arrested, and they were to appear before the council the next day. These two Galilean fishermen stood for the first time as defendants before the leading people of their nation... The sight of that assembly could well have overwhelmed the prisoners. Perhaps such a display was meant to intimidate them. But did it? Their position was new to them, yet the Lord had foreseen it. He had warned them that they would stand before kings and rulers for His sake. He had also encouraged them with the promise that the Holy Spirit would teach them what to say.
They called it a trial. It became a preaching platform. One commentator traces the order across the two chapters:
The common people had the Gospel presented to them in the third chapter, the leaders are going to get it now in the fourth.
The charge was absurd, and the best witness for the defence stood in the room:
But did you ever hear of such utter folly as putting a man in prison, and trying him for a good deed — healing a cripple? God brings the man in, as it were, to give witness to that council. I do not suppose the council invited him, for he was an awkward witness. Look at him now, whole!
Earlier Peter had allowed that ignorance played a part. Before these men he drops that word, and one commentator explains why:
Now that he has these guilty leaders in front of him, he does not say, "I know that through ignorance you did it." They were now making it perfectly clear that there was a will — a wicked will. So he allows no excuse, and it is always so with God. When He first meets souls, He meets them as they are, with nothing but grace. When they go on rejecting Christ, there is no use denying that there is a rebellious will.
One writer sums up the whole day, from the gathering to Peter's answer:
On the next day the religious authorities crowded together, from the highest down through every grade, and they challenged the two apostles. Peter answered in the power of the Spirit Who filled him. The good deed was done in the name of the One they had crucified, and God had raised Him from the dead. His word describes Him as the Stone, thrown aside by the builders, yet made the head of the corner — the rejected but exalted Messiah.
- Gathered against Him — the rulers, elders and scribes were the same men who had condemned Jesus to death. The case had reopened itself.
- Gathered by Him — they called it a trial. It became "a God-ordained means of their hearing the truth" they refused to hear.
- Gathered to intimidate — the crowded court may have been meant to frighten two fishermen. But the Lord had told them they would stand before rulers, and promised the Spirit to give them words.
- Gathered to be told — chapter 3 brought the good news to ordinary people. Chapter 4 brings it to the leaders, with the healed man standing there as an awkward witness.
- Gathered as builders — Peter allows them no excuse of ignorance. They are the builders who threw the Stone aside, and God has made it the head of the corner.
and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of [the] high priestly family;
The morning after their arrest, Peter and John faced the men Luke names here — Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and the rest of the high priest's family. Why list a court that achieved nothing, and why call Annas high priest when he no longer held the office?
These men were not new opponents. One writer points out that their meeting served a purpose they never intended.
The arrest of Peter and John called for a large gathering of the Jewish rulers, elders and scribes. It included Annas and Caiaphas, who was almost a joint high priest with Annas. These were the same men who had condemned the Lord Jesus to death. What angered them was the preaching of Jesus risen from the dead. Yet they could not ignore the striking miracle of the healing of the lame man... So their gathering was God's own way of making them hear the truth about Christ risen from among the dead — the truth they did not want to hear.
Annas lost the office years before, yet Luke gives him the title first. Commentators differ on the reason. One answer is that the title stayed with him as an honour:
Annas became high priest in A.D. 7. Cyrenius, or Quirinus, the governor of Syria, appointed him. In the reign of Tiberius he lost the office, and four men followed him in quick succession, the last being Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law. It is thought that people still called Annas high priest out of courtesy, since he had once held the office.
Another writer would rather admit ignorance than correct Luke:
The Lord's questioning before Annas (John 18) shows that Annas still had authority in a moral sense, though not in fact. So people may have gone on calling him high priest (see Luke 3:2), because he had once held that office. We are sure that Luke writes about what he had searched out for himself. So if we cannot explain why Annas is called high priest here, it is because there is something we do not yet know. It is wiser to admit our ignorance and wait for fuller light than to accuse the historian of ignorance, until we are quite sure we know better than he did.
The confusion over titles points to a deeper disorder. Rome now decided who served as high priest. One writer traces this in the career of Caiaphas.
Caiaphas was a Sadducee. He received his office in A.D. 17 or 18 from the Roman governor Valerius Gratus, who made and unmade high priests, you might say, as he pleased... God's order in the high priesthood was set aside. It seems that a Gentile, Valerius Gratus, appointed whichever man of the house of Aaron he chose.
Nothing certain is known about John and Alexander. That silence carries its own lesson.
Everyone knows the names of the two men on trial, and Scripture keeps the record of their service forever. The story of John and Alexander was well known at the time, but it has almost completely faded away. The great people of the earth are often nearly forgotten, while God's servants of the same day are remembered and honoured.
Two fishermen now stood before the whole ruling family. The Lord had prepared them for this moment.
For the first time these two Galilean fishermen stood on trial before the leading men of their nation... The sight of that assembly could easily have overwhelmed the prisoners. Perhaps such a display was meant to frighten them. But did it? Their position was new to them, yet the Lord had foreseen it. He had warned them that men would bring them before kings and rulers for His sake. He had also encouraged them by promising the Holy Spirit, who would teach them what to say... Had these rulers stamped out the movement? It had taken new life since its Founder's death.
The council saw Peter and John as untrained men. One writer turns that verdict back on the judges.
They saw the boldness of these men, but they also saw that they were untrained and uneducated. It was not that Peter and John were ignorant of the truth. The judges were the ignorant ones. It was not that Peter and John knew little of the Scriptures. Caiaphas and Annas and the others were the ones who knew little of the Scriptures... It showed, so to speak, the power and the grace of God made perfect in weakness.
- Assembled — the same court that condemned Jesus now judges two of His followers.
- Appointed — Annas keeps the title without the office. Rome made and unmade high priests at will, and God's order in the priesthood was set aside.
- Arranged — the size of the court may have been meant to frighten. But the Lord had warned His disciples about rulers and promised the Spirit to teach them what to say.
- Answered — the men the council called untrained knew the Scriptures better than their judges. God's power was made perfect in weakness.
- Anonymous — John and Alexander were famous then and forgotten now. Scripture keeps the service of the two prisoners forever.